What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 23
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The concept of time only makes sense if there is substance. Time is not abstract or constant - it is relative and
dependent on the observer.
So it is a feeling? Not the movement of something around something else, nor the measurement of that movement by a chronometer. And it is just a subjective impression (feeling) of events? By the way, whose words are these?
Just why the timing. Everyone has their own time. And it is difficult to compare it (everyone's time) with another (another person's time).
I.e. it is a subjective feeling (perception) of internal and external events going on now. Everything else on the subject is a memory and nothing more.
Let it be as it is right, as it is true. Gravity is true for all.
Time spent (day-month-year) goes> into knowledge, knowledge when time is spent (day-month-year) goes> into money. For example: You learn a profession and work (apply knowledge) and earn money.
Money through knowledge (without time spent or a small amount of it) passes into time. For example: I earned money (ie, they have), bought groceries (you know what and how), paid utilities (you know how to do it), etc. A week does not have to go to the shop, a month to pay utility bills.
Where "time (day-monthyyear)" - these are pieces of time measured by a timekeeper. The "for example" may be different, but the principle is the same.
Is there any ignorance in this chain (I don't see it, I don't understand it correctly)?
There is a slight misconception in your thought, namely:
A mass of time spent on education does not guarantee money, even to sustain life. You know many examples of this yourself.
There's a good thought that goes like this:
to live well, you have to work well and hard,
but to be rich, you have to think of something else.
I would like to ask you to explain how you imagine infinity.
Hardly :) if not impossible to imagine at all... a certain primordiality in which space and time reside.
I.e. it is a subjective feeling (perception) of internal and external events going on now. Everything else on the subject is a memory and nothing more.
It is not always the time spent that provides the knowledge that the money provides.
On a deeper level, it simply is (lives) according to its own principles. Bring the timekeeping there and there will be time there.
There is a slight misconception in your thought, namely:
A mass of time spent on education does not guarantee money, even to sustain life. You yourself know many examples of this.
There's a good backwards thought:
to live well, you have to work well and hard,
but to be rich, you have to think of something else.
Spending time does not always yield the knowledge that money does.
I don't mean education by any means. I mean learning, i.e. acquiring real knowledge that I know I will make money from. That's what I mean. You are referring to a case where a person is not achieving true knowledge, i.e. you are not reaching true knowledge.
I mean, is it a feeling? Not the movement of anything around something else, nor the measurement of that movement with a timing device. Is it just a subjective impression (feeling) of events? By the way, whose words are these?
I do not remember whose words. I have been interested in the subject for a long time. One way or another, but if one wants to build a mathematical model using the category - time, then one will have to make an assumption that something in Forex is a substance )))). And it will be possible to use the laws of physics for the market. And there will be even more room for discussion. It would even be possible to make an assumption about the possibility of travelling in it.
Rather there is (lives) what is in it... including time. Which is a far cry from the fact that there is.
That's what I'm getting at. So, it turns out: time is only inside an observer, in the form of his/her subjective perception of the NOW (processes of life). There, outside an observer, there are processes of life that can be measured with a chronometer. These two understandings are simply mixed up in a soup of ignorance.
Is there a wrong one in this chain?
If you want to build a mathematical model using the category - time, you will need to make the assumption that something in forex is a substance